ColoradoKathy wrote: I am ready for communal living and don't know what happened to the proposal that was supposed to happen near Evergreen. At this very minute, is your kitchen just sitting there, clean and empty? while somebody could be making dinner to be ready on your return? is your home being heated at mondo expense, while nobody is there except the dogs? it's a wasteful way to live, this notion that we all have to have our own digs, and imho contributes to the societal breakdown we've experienced.
There, that's my soapbox! lol no, you can't just move in! tongue: and forgive me Sophia, for intruding on your thread. But in all honesty I don't understand the "separate caves" we've established in modern times and think properties like this should indeed be purchased collectively, and developed into multi-family communes where people share the kitchen and the costs of maintenance but have their own separate "alone" quarters as well. So there. KissyFace: Please understand, these are philosophical comments only! as Burland is covenanted for single family residential construction except in designated areas and I've no idea whether this is in one of them, or even whether the property design might lend itself to my Utopian fantasy. lol
I do sort of doubt that the gentleman from Kentucky has walked the property but suppose it could happen.
I saw that the Silver Tip was sold! congrats to Sharon Beem! think it was $1.6.
CK, I love your idea. In fact I would hope that some intentional community would grow there. Not sure about the legality of this but that's to be determined. In fact I advertised the property on intentional community sites. When the time is right the right buyer will appear. :pinkrose: Meanwhile, feel free to share the link and your thoughts!!! It is refreshing to have a likeminded soul on board...and for the comment on how steep the property is. that is only partially true, there are many ridges, saddles and other flat areas that would lend themselves to building with spectacular views.
RidgeWay wrote: Awesome pix but the property is rather steep and way overpriced. What about the access issues through Burland lots? Burland HOA could stop any kind of development because of that Woodside case. You can see that many neighbors did their homework. I learned a lot from them.
I'm not getting the connections. Is this property part of Burland Ranchettes? That's the only area in which the HOA has any authority. Access isn't an issue because it's on public roads.
Not sure what you're referencing regarding being able to "stop any kind of development because of that Woodside case". Are you meaning Tanglewood? If so, that has nothing to do with Burland to my understanding.
It does not have a public road to it. As explained to me only access through Burland lots and their covenants do not allow for roads to other property, not part of Burland, through them unless recorded on the original plat map and there isn't any. There is no access. So much for any idea of multi family living on there. No one can legally build. Who would pay $1 million for something they can't use. The Magness, (Magnus, Magnum, sorry I forget the name a person on Ptarmigan shared) vs. Woodside makes it illegal.
And try finding a level spot on the property. There isn't any per the neighbors who border it.
And it is a creek not a river. Surprised by the misrepresentations.
Mtn Gramma wrote:
RidgeWay wrote: Awesome pix but the property is rather steep and way overpriced. What about the access issues through Burland lots? Burland HOA could stop any kind of development because of that Woodside case. You can see that many neighbors did their homework. I learned a lot from them.
I'm not getting the connections. Is this property part of Burland Ranchettes? That's the only area in which the HOA has any authority. Access isn't an issue because it's on public roads.
Not sure what you're referencing regarding being able to "stop any kind of development because of that Woodside case". Are you meaning Tanglewood? If so, that has nothing to do with Burland to my understanding.
RidgeWay wrote: It does not have a public road to it. As explained to me only access through Burland lots and their covenants do not allow for roads to other property, not part of Burland, through them unless recorded on the original plat map and there isn't any. There is no access. So much for any idea of multi family living on there. No one can legally build. Who would pay $1 million for something they can't use. The Magness, (Magnus, Magnum, sorry I forget the name a person on Ptarmigan shared) vs. Woodside makes it illegal.
And try finding a level spot on the property. There isn't any per the neighbors who border it.
And it is a creek not a river. Surprised by the misrepresentations.
Mtn Gramma wrote:
RidgeWay wrote: Awesome pix but the property is rather steep and way overpriced. What about the access issues through Burland lots? Burland HOA could stop any kind of development because of that Woodside case. You can see that many neighbors did their homework. I learned a lot from them.
I'm not getting the connections. Is this property part of Burland Ranchettes? That's the only area in which the HOA has any authority. Access isn't an issue because it's on public roads.
Not sure what you're referencing regarding being able to "stop any kind of development because of that Woodside case". Are you meaning Tanglewood? If so, that has nothing to do with Burland to my understanding.
not sure where your statements are coming from ridgeway, but all legalities in terms of access have been taken care of by the owner through the county. I have showed the property to potential buyers and walked it extensively, if you are interested in making an offer I'd be happy to show you the building sites that obviously you have not seen yet.
As was learned in the Woodside HOA case, even if a permit is unknowingly granted by the county as was in that case it can be stopped because the Woodside covenants provide something to the effect that only homes maybe built on their subdivision lots not roads running through it. Burland has the same provisions. Check the court of appeals case that stopped the rich guy from using a road through the lot he owned in Woodside to access his non Woodside property even when he got a permit from the county who was in error for doing so. The county is pretty much immune from prosecution as they were in this case for their wrongdoing. But rich guy got burned in this one when the community stopped him.
If you have shown it to so many people why hasn't it sold? It is steep. Per neighbor on Mockingbird who has met with others regarding the above problems, ParkCo LUR's won't allow any building because of the steepness of the property. The lot that is currently used to access has so many switchbacks and then more sliding down the mountain that it wouldn't qualify even if for some reason the access issue was resolved which it won't be. Anyone who wants to know check google earth. She gives the address right on the video. Check the elevation at the entrance and then at the stream. Several hundred feet difference. It is one piece of mountain full of rock and steepness.
A person on Eagle says it has been a problem for decades with illegal activities. He says it is monitored because of so many current issues. Check the signs.
The last owner pawned it off on the current owner who got suckered in and paid too much and now they are trying to pawn off a bad situation on someone else.
Perhaps you need to do the same research that the Burland neighbors have done. Are those flowers in the video from that property or from your walks elsewhere? Mockingbird person says they have never seen those type of flowers on the rocky, steep arid property. I wouldn't know as I have never walked it, only observed it from another person's property across the stream who has a good view of much of the property because it is a side of a mountain. Considering there are some arsonists in the area besides a host of additional problems I am so grateful to learn it is being monitored.
And lastly per another Mockingbird neighbor ask any homeowner who adjoins their property about their well situation. Ask anyone in Burland these days. Ask how many have augmented their wells or have to bring water in because the wells are dry.
Please anyone who is considering purchasing this property do your homework. Talk to the neighbors in the Upper Burland area, especially the ones who are monitoring the property because of all the problems.
But in all honesty I don't understand the "separate caves" we've established in modern times and think properties like this should indeed be purchased collectively, and developed into multi-family communes where people share the kitchen and the costs of maintenance but have their own separate "alone" quarters as well. So there. KissyFace: Please understand, these are philosophical comments only! as Burland is covenanted for single family residential construction except in designated areas and I've no idea whether this is in one of them, or even whether the property design might lend itself to my Utopian fantasy. lol
